Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

ACCOUNT

OF A

BO O

K,

ENTITLED,

An historical and critical Enquiry into the Evi dence produced by the Earls of MORAY and MORTON, against MARY Queen of Scots*. With an Examination of the Rev. Dr. RobertSON'S Differtation, and Mr. HUME'S Hiftory, with refpect to that Evidence+.

WE live in an age in which there is much talk of

independence, of private judgment, of liberty of thought, and liberty of prefs. Our clamorous praises of liberty fufficiently prove that we enjoy it; and if by liberty nothing else be meant, than fecurity from the perfecutions of power, it is fo fully poffeffed by us, that little more is to be defired, except that one fhould talk of it lefs, and use it better.

But a focial being can fcarcely rife to complete independence; he that has any wants, which others can

• Written by Mr. Tytler, of Edinburgh. E.

+ Printed in the Gentleman's Magazine, October 1760. E.

fupply,

fupply, muft ftudy the gratification of them whofe affittance he expects; this is equally true, whether his wants be wants of nature or of vanity. The writers of the prefent time are not always candidates for preferment, -nor often the hirelings of a patron. They profefs to serve no interest, and fpeak with loud contempt of fycophants and flaves.

There is, however, a power, from whofe influence neither they nor their predeceffors have ever been free, Those who have fet greatness at defiance, have yet been the flaves of fashion. When an opinion has once become popular, very few are willing to oppofe it. Idlenefs is more willing to credit than enquire; cowardice is afraid of controverfy, and vanity of anfwer; and he that writes merely for fale, is tempted to court purchafers by flattering the prejudices of the public.

It has now been fashionable for near half a century, to defame and vilify the houfe of Stuart, and to exalt and magnify the reign of Elizabeth. The Stuarts have found. few apologists, for the dead cannot pay for praife; and who will, without reward, oppofe the tide of popularity? Yet there remains full among us, not wholly extin guifhed, a zeal for truth, a defire of establishing right, in oppofition to fashion. The author, whofe work is now before us, has attempted a vindication of Mary of Scotland, whofe name has for fome years been generally refigned to infamy, and who has been confidered as the murderer of her husband, and condemned by her own letters.

Of the fe letters, the author of this vindication confeffes the importance to be fuch, that if they be genuine, the

queen

queen was guilty; and if they be fpurious, he was innocent. He has, therefore, undertaken to prove them fpurious, and divided his treatise into fix parts.

In the first is contained the history of the letters, from their discovery by the earl of Morton, their being produced against Q. Mary, and their feveral appearances in England before Q. Elizabeth and her commiffioners, un til they were finally delivered back again to the earl of Morton.

The fecond contains a short abstract of Mr. Goodall's arguments for proving the letters to be fpurious and forged; and of Dr. Robertfon and Mr. Hume's objections by way of answer to Mr. Goodall, with critical obfervations on these authors.

The third contains an examination of the arguments of Dr. Robertfen and Mr. Hume, in fupport of the authenticity of the letters.

The fourth contains an examination of the confeffion of Nicholas Hubert, commonly called French Paris, with obfervations fhewing the fame to be a forgery.

[ocr errors]

The fifth contains a fhort recapitulation or summary of the arguments on both fides of the queftion. And, The last is an hiftorical collection of the direct or positive evidence ftill on record, tending to fhew what part the earls of Murray, and Morton, and fecretary` Lethington, had in the murder of the lord Darnley.

The author apologises for the length of this book, by obferving, that it neceffarily comprises a great number of particulars, which could not easily be contracted: the fame plea may be made for the imperfection of our extract, which will naturally fall below the force of the book,

2

book, because we can only select parts of that evidence, which owes its strength to its concatenation, and which will be weakened whenever it is disjoined.

The account of the feizure of these controverted letters is thus given by the queen's enemies.

"That in the caftell of Edinburgh thair was left be "the Erle of Bothwell, before his fleeing away, and was "fend for be ane George Dalgleish, his fervand, who was "taken be the Erle of Mortoun, ane fmall gylt coffer, "not fully ane fute lang, garnisht in findrie places, with "the Roman letter F. under ane king's crowne; wharin "were certane letteris and writings weel knawin, and "be aithis to be affirmit to have been written with the Quene of Scottis awn hand to the Erle."

[ocr errors]

The papers in the box were faid to be eight letters in French, fome love fonnets in French alfo, and a promise of marriage by the Queen to Bothwell.

To the reality of these letters our author makes fome confiderable objections, from the nature of things; but as fuch arguments do not always convince, we will pass to the evidence of facts.

On June 15, 1567, the queen delivered herself to Morton, and his party, who imprisoned her,

June 20, 1567, Dalgleish was feized, and fix days after was examined by Morton; his examination is still extant, and there is no mention of this fatal box.

Dec. 4, 1567, Murray's fecret council published an act, in which is the first mention of these letters, and in which they are said to be written and fubfcrivit with her awin band. Ten days after Murray's first parliament met, and paffed an act, in which they mention previe

letters,

letters written balelie [wholly] with her awin hand. The difference between written and fubfcribed, and wholly written, gives the author just reafon to fufpect, first, a forgery, and then a variation of the forgery. It is indeed very remarkable, that the firft account afferts more than the fecond, though the second contains all the truth; for the letters, whether written by the queen or not, were not fubfcribed. Had the fecond account differed from the first only by fomething added, the first might have contained truth, though not all the truth; but as the fecond corrects the firft by diminution, the first cannot be cleared from falfhood.

In October 1568, thefe letters were fhewn at York to Elizabeth's commiffioners, by the agents of Murray, but not in their public character as commiffioners, but by way of private information, and were not therefore expofed to Mary's commiffioners. Mary, however, hearing that fome letters were intended to be produced against her, directed her commiffioners to require them for her infpection, and, in the mean time, to declare them falfe and feigned, forged and invented, obferving that there were many that could counterfeit her hand.

To counterfeit a name is eafy, to counterfeit a hand through eight letters very difficult. But it does not appear that the letters were ever fhewn to thofe who would defire to detect them; and to the English commiffioners a rude and remote imitation might be fufficient, fince they were not shewn as judicial proofs; and why they were not fhewn as proofs, no other reafon can be given than they must have then been examined, and that examination would have detected the forgery.

Thefe

« AnteriorContinuar »